Manley figures several similarly decorated pieces - turquoise over opal bodies - and seems quite happy in attributing them to Boulton & Mills (partly on the basis of the turquoise - or what he calls 'weak blue' decoration). However................factors that may possibly be against this being B. & M. are -

1.........the feet (which incidentally are apparently known as 'tall height, wishbone pattern in trailed glass).2.........no clear casing over the crystal.3.........pronged feet rather than a solid foot.

Although this style of pronged applied feet are known on British material (have a look at Gulliver where there are good examples of this type of foot together with leaf trail decoration), the examples shown by Manley all have solid feet - and when discussing origin he comments............."opal jug with blue decoration. Cheap handle and weak blue colour helps to identify as Boulton & Mills c. 1910. Only the extra weight and solid foot distinguishes it from a Continental specimen"

None of the pieces in Manley has a ground/beveled rim - and as we know he makes no comment about uranium content.Other pieces included in Manley - but which have coloured acanthus decoration and coloured inner bodies, - he assigns to S. & W., but differentiating pieces from the two factories seems to have no hard and fast rule....for example - opal casing over a colour can equally be either maker, and acanthus leaves are also from both factories.

Manley seems to consider this weak blue as being a specific B. & M. characteristic.

Barry Skelcher is unconvinced, and believes ground/bevelled rims are a Continental feature.

Gulliver plays safe as usual, and is not prepared to make a positive attribution on almost all of these 'commonly decorated' types of popular glass.

Pronged feet, ground/beveled rim and a lack of a crystal casing, may well mean a more than 50/50 chance that this is Continental.

Glassobsessed posted a vase recently which has a cut, ground and polished rim and which iirc has been identified as British. I will try and find the link.I'm not so sure about using Manley to decide what is Continental and what not? I seem to recall there are a number of misattributions in his book although that may be because of the age of book and the knowledge available at the time? m

yes, I also understand that there has been some re-assessment of Manley's attributions, although I have to admit total ignorance about this sort of decorative Victorian glass, so make no comment myself - as so often, my information comes from books.

I believe that for some of his material, Manley had first hand knowledge, or had spoken to workers who remembered the manufacturing details etc. - although in this particular matter he doesn't explain exactly why he was so convinced that weak blue and opal was a Boulton & Mills feature.Must admit that my thoughts on 'ground and bevelled rims being Continental' are tenuous to say the least, and are based on some information from somewhere where it was stated that this type of rim finish - on drinking glasses - was likely to be Continental.

You're quite right, of course, that rims with this finish can equally be British - see Gulliver - who, under the heading of Component Designs/Designs for Rims, includes ..........Ground off, and polished.

The trouble is nobody really knows about so many of these things. Manley and Skelcher are not always to be relied on for their attributions and even Gulliver shows things that are now known not to be British. I personally have stopped worrying about who made what and go with

Quote

a nice uranium vase made in late Victorian times

I have a large collection of vases and baskets in white/cream uranium glass and only one unmarked pair and one marked vase have definitive IDs.